MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410203324 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2025.2488299

Correcting Speculation with Facts: A First-Hand Account of the Origins of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers and Its Importance to Canadian Healthcare

2025· letter· en· W4410203324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim Holland, Andrea Frolic, Cécile M. Bensimon, Sandy Buchman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBruyèreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeculationAssociation (psychology)Health careSociologyPsychologyManagementBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lyon et al. (2025) assert that Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) practice in Canada is predominated by a small group of activist clinicians affiliated with the Canadian Association of MAiD Assesso...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207